DOCSLIB.ORG

Elliptic Curves, Modularity and the Conjecture of Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Elliptic Curves, Modularity and the Conjecture of Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer Elliptic curves, modularity and the conjecture of Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer Peter Bruin 17 May 2016 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Elliptic curves 1 3 The L-function of an elliptic curve 2 4 The modularity theorem 3 5 The conjecture of Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer 4 6 The congruent number problem 4 1 Introduction As mentioned in the previous lecture, there exists an important connection between modular forms and elliptic curves by means of their L-functions. Since knowledge of elliptic curves is not a prerequisite for this course, in this lecture we will introduce some background on elliptic curves that will enable us to explain this connection. Two illustrations of the connection between L-functions and modular forms are the modularity theorem for elliptic curves over Q and the conjecture of Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer. The modularity theorem predicts that the L-function attached to any elliptic curve over Q is also the L-function of some primitive cusp form. This was stated as a conjecture by Shimura and Taniyama in the 1950s. Around 1995, Andrew Wiles (with the help of Richard Taylor) proved enough of the modularity theorem to deduce Fermat’s last theorem. The proof of the modularity theorem was completed in 2001 by the work of Breuil, Conrad, Diamond and Taylor. An elliptic curve E over Q has an L-function L(E,s), which is defined purely in terms of local data (the reductions of E modulo prime numbers). The conjecture of Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer predicts the behaviour of the function L(E,s) at the point s = 1 in terms of global data (the rank of the group of rational points). This conjecture can be compared to the analytic class number formula from algebraic number theory, which links the residue at s = 1 of the Dedekind ζ-function ζK (s) of a number field K to various arithmetic invariants attached to K. 2 Elliptic curves We first give a ‘canonical’ definition of elliptic curves, and then say somewhat more concretely what an equation for an elliptic curve looks like. Definition. An elliptic curve over a field K is a smooth cubic curve E in the projective plane over K together with a K-rational point O E(K). ∈ 1 After a suitable choice of coordinates, every elliptic curve over K is given by a Weierstrass equation. This is a homogeneous equation of the form 2 2 3 2 2 3 y z + a1xyz + a3yz = x + a2x z + a4xz + a6z with a1,...,a6 K (subject to some condition expressing the smoothness of E), with the point O having coordinates∈ (0 : 1 : 0). This is usually written in affine coordinates as 2 3 2 y + a1xy + a3y = x + a2x + a4x + a6. We write E(K) for the set of all K-rational points of E. This can be thought of as the set of all pairs (x,y) K K satisfying the above equation, together with the ‘infinite’ point O. One of the most∈ × fundamental facts about elliptic curves is that the set E(K) has the structure of an Abelian group with identity element O. The group structure is determined uniquely by the property that three points add up to O if and only if they are the three intersection points (counted with multiplicities) of E with a line. For elliptic curves over Q (or more general number fields), the structure of E(K) has been studied very extensively. The basic result about E(K) in this case is the Mordell–Weil theorem. Theorem 2.1 (Mordell–Weil). If K = Q (or more generally any number field), then the Abelian group E(K) is finitely generated. If E is an elliptic curve over a number field K, then E(K) is called the Mordell–Weil group of E. The above theorem implies that if E is an elliptic curve over Q, we can write E(Q)= T Zr, × where T is a finite Abelian group (the torsion subgroup E(Q)tor of E(Q)) and r is some non- negative integer, called the (algebraic) rank of E. Given an elliptic curve E over Q, there is a straightforward way of computing E(Q)tor, and there are only finitely many possibilities for the group E(Q)tor up to isomorphism. However, it is in general much harder to determine r, and it is not known whether r can be arbitrarily large. Furthermore, it is in general ‘hard’ to determine a finite set of points P1,...,P E(Q) such that r ∈ P1,...,Pr together with E(Q)tor is a generating set of E(Q). 3 The L-function of an elliptic curve We assume that E is an elliptic curve over Q given by a Weierstrass equation as above, and such that in addition the ai are in Z and the equation is minimal (a notion that we will not make precise). Then for every prime number p, we consider the equation over Fp obtained by reducing the equation modulo p. The curve EFp defined by this equation is called the reduction of E modulo p. We say that E has good reduction at p if EFp is a smooth curve; otherwise we say that E has bad reduction at p. There exists a positive integer N (called the conductor of E, and related to the minimal discriminant of E) such that E has bad reduction at p if and only if p N. In particular, E only has bad reduction at finitely many prime numbers p. | For every prime number, the set E(Fp) is finite. We define integers ap for p prime by a = p + 1 #E(F ). p − p Remark. This is the correct definition even when the reduction of E modulo p is singular. Theorem 3.1 (Hasse). The integers ap satisfy a 2√p. | p|≤ 2 Furthermore, we define 1 if p ∤ N, ǫ(p)= 0 if p N. ( | (In other words, ǫ is the trivial Dirichlet character modulo N.) We now define 1 L(E,s)= . 1 a p−s + ǫ(p)p1−2s prime p p Y − It follows from Hasse’s theorem that this infinite product converges absolutely and uniformly for s σ, for any σ > 3/2. This implies that the product defines a holomorphic function on ℜs ≥C s > 3/2 . However, unlike in the setting of modular forms, where we have the Mellin transform{ ∈ | ℜ at our disposal,} there seems to be no easy way to prove that L(E,s) has an analytic continuation and functional equation. 4 The modularity theorem To be able to say anything really interesting about the L-function of an elliptic curve over Q, we will need the modularity theorem. This is the following statement. Theorem 4.1 (Modularity of elliptic curves over Q). Let E be an elliptic curve over Q. Then there exist N 1 and a primitive form f S2(Γ0(N)) of weight 2 such that L(f,s) is equal to L(E,s). ≥ ∈ Example. Let E be the elliptic curve defined by the equation E : y2 + y = x3 x2. − Then the conductor N of E equals 11. (This is the smallest possible conductor of an elliptic curve over Q.) There exists exactly one primitive cusp form of weight 2 for Γ0(11), namely q 2q2 q3 + 2q4 + q5 + 2q6 2q7 2q9 + O(q10). − − − − Hence this is the primitive form attached to E by the modularity theorem. The modularity theorem (formerly the Taniyama–Shimura conjecture) is a very deep result. One of its most important consequences is that it implies that L-functions of elliptic curves over Q admit an analytic continuation to all of C and satisfy a functional equation relating L(E,s) and L(E, 2 s) (again via completed L-functions, like in the case of L-functions of modular forms). This is− not at all obvious, and the modularity theorem is currently the only known way to prove the analytic continuation and functional equation for L-functions of elliptic curves. For elliptic curves over other number fields than Q, only very partial results are known. The modularity theorem was proved first for an important class of elliptic curves (the semi- stable ones, corresponding to square-free N) in 1995 by work of Wiles [4], completed by Taylor and Wiles [2], from which Fermat’s last theorem follows. (More about Fermat’s last theorem will be said in the last lecture of this course.) The modularity theorem was then proved in more generality by Diamond (1996), Conrad, Diamond and Taylor (1999) and finally for arbitrary E by Breuil, Conrad, Diamond and Taylor (2001). The proof of the modularity theorem combines many different techniques, which we cannot explain here. Just to mention one key part of the proof that is related to this course: one ingredient is to show that certain Hecke algebras are isomorphic to so-called deformation rings. This is then used to prove a modularity lifting theorem, which is a statement of the type that if the coefficients an of L(E,s) are congruent to the coefficients of a modular form modulo some prime number l, then the coefficients an are actually equal to the coefficients of a modular form. Remark. We have phrased the modularity theorem in terms of L-functions, but there are many other formulations; see Diamond and Shurman’s book for alternative versions. 3 5 The conjecture of Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer Around 1958, Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer performed some of the first computer calculations in number theory. Given an elliptic curve over Q given by a Weierstrass equation with coefficients in Z, they studied the way in which the number of points #E(Fp) of the reduction depends on the rank of E over Q.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arxiv:2003.01675V1 [Math.NT] 3 Mar 2020 of Their Locations
    DIVISORS OF MODULAR PARAMETRIZATIONS OF ELLIPTIC CURVES MICHAEL GRIFFIN AND JONATHAN HALES Abstract. The modularity theorem implies that for every elliptic curve E=Q there exist rational maps from the modular curve X0(N) to E, where N is the conductor of E. These maps may be expressed in terms of pairs of modular functions X(z) and Y (z) where X(z) and Y (z) satisfy the Weierstrass equation for E as well as a certain differential equation. Using these two relations, a recursive algorithm can be used to calculate the q - expansions of these parametrizations at any cusp. Using these functions, we determine the divisor of the parametrization and the preimage of rational points on E. We give a sufficient condition for when these preimages correspond to CM points on X0(N). We also examine a connection between the al- gebras generated by these functions for related elliptic curves, and describe sufficient conditions to determine congruences in the q-expansions of these objects. 1. Introduction and statement of results The modularity theorem [2, 12] guarantees that for every elliptic curve E of con- ductor N there exists a weight 2 newform fE of level N with Fourier coefficients in Z. The Eichler integral of fE (see (3)) and the Weierstrass }-function together give a rational map from the modular curve X0(N) to the coordinates of some model of E: This parametrization has singularities wherever the value of the Eichler integral is in the period lattice. Kodgis [6] showed computationally that many of the zeros of the Eichler integral occur at CM points.
    [Show full text]
  • Supersingular Zeros of Divisor Polynomials of Elliptic Curves of Prime Conductor
    Kazalicki and Kohen Res Math Sci(2017) 4:10 DOI 10.1186/s40687-017-0099-8 R E S E A R C H Open Access Supersingular zeros of divisor polynomials of elliptic curves of prime conductor Matija Kazalicki1* and Daniel Kohen2,3 *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract 1Department of Mathematics, p p University of Zagreb, Bijeniˇcka For a prime number , we study the zeros modulo of divisor polynomials of rational cesta 30, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia elliptic curves E of conductor p. Ono (CBMS regional conference series in mathematics, Full list of author information is 2003, vol 102, p. 118) made the observation that these zeros are often j-invariants of available at the end of the article supersingular elliptic curves over Fp. We show that these supersingular zeros are in bijection with zeros modulo p of an associated quaternionic modular form vE .This allows us to prove that if the root number of E is −1 then all supersingular j-invariants of elliptic curves defined over Fp are zeros of the corresponding divisor polynomial. If the root number is 1, we study the discrepancy between rank 0 and higher rank elliptic curves, as in the latter case the amount of supersingular zeros in Fp seems to be larger. In order to partially explain this phenomenon, we conjecture that when E has positive rank the values of the coefficients of vE corresponding to supersingular elliptic curves defined over Fp are even. We prove this conjecture in the case when the discriminant of E is positive, and obtain several other results that are of independent interest.
    [Show full text]
  • A Glimpse of the Laureate's Work
    A glimpse of the Laureate’s work Alex Bellos Fermat’s Last Theorem – the problem that captured planets moved along their elliptical paths. By the beginning Andrew Wiles’ imagination as a boy, and that he proved of the nineteenth century, however, they were of interest three decades later – states that: for their own properties, and the subject of work by Niels Henrik Abel among others. There are no whole number solutions to the Modular forms are a much more abstract kind of equation xn + yn = zn when n is greater than 2. mathematical object. They are a certain type of mapping on a certain type of graph that exhibit an extremely high The theorem got its name because the French amateur number of symmetries. mathematician Pierre de Fermat wrote these words in Elliptic curves and modular forms had no apparent the margin of a book around 1637, together with the connection with each other. They were different fields, words: “I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this arising from different questions, studied by different people proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” who used different terminology and techniques. Yet in the The tantalizing suggestion of a proof was fantastic bait to 1950s two Japanese mathematicians, Yutaka Taniyama the many generations of mathematicians who tried and and Goro Shimura, had an idea that seemed to come out failed to find one. By the time Wiles was a boy Fermat’s of the blue: that on a deep level the fields were equivalent. Last Theorem had become the most famous unsolved The Japanese suggested that every elliptic curve could be problem in mathematics, and proving it was considered, associated with its own modular form, a claim known as by consensus, well beyond the reaches of available the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture, a surprising and radical conceptual tools.
    [Show full text]
  • The Arbeitsgemeinschaft 2017: Higher Gross-Zagier Formulas Notes By
    The Arbeitsgemeinschaft 2017: Higher Gross-Zagier Formulas Notes by Tony Feng1 Oberwolfach April 2-8, 2017 1version of April 11, 2017 Contents Note to the reader 5 Part 1. Day One 7 1. An overview of the Gross-Zagier and Waldspurger formulas (Yunqing Tang) 8 2. The stacks Bunn and Hecke (Timo Richarz) 13 3. (Moduli of Shtukas I) (Doug Ulmer) 17 4. Moduli of Shtukas II (Brian Smithling) 21 Part 2. Day Two 25 5. Automorphic forms over function fields (Ye Tian) 26 6. The work of Drinfeld (Arthur Cesar le Bras) 30 7. Analytic RTF: Geometric Side (Jingwei Xiao) 36 8. Analytic RTF: Spectral Side (Ilya Khayutin) 41 Part 3. Day Three 47 9. Geometric Interpretation of Orbital Integrals (Yihang Zhu) 48 10. Definition and properties of Md (Jochen Heinloth) 52 Part 4. Day Four 57 11. Intersection theory on stacks (Michael Rapoport) 58 12. LTF for Cohomological Correspondences (Davesh Maulik) 64 µ 13. Definition and description of HkM;d: expressing Ir(hD) as a trace (Liang Xiao) 71 3 4 CONTENTS 14. Alternative calculation of Ir(hD) (Yakov Varshavsky) 77 Part 5. Day Five 83 15. Comparison of Md and Nd; the weight factors (Ana Caraiani) 84 16. Horocycles (Lizao Ye) 89 17. Cohomological spectral decomposition and finishing the proof (Chao Li) 93 NOTE TO THE READER 5 Note to the reader This document consists of notes I live-TEXed during the Arbeitsgemeinschaft at Oberwolfach in April 2017. They should not be taken as a faithful transcription of the actual lectures; they represent only my personal perception of the talks.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrew Wiles's Marvelous Proof
    Andrew Wiles’s Marvelous Proof Henri Darmon ermat famously claimed to have discovered “a truly marvelous proof” of his Last Theorem, which the margin of his copy of Diophantus’s Arithmetica was too narrow to contain. While this proof (if it ever existed) is lost to posterity, AndrewF Wiles’s marvelous proof has been public for over two decades and has now earned him the Abel Prize. According to the prize citation, Wiles merits this recogni- tion “for his stunning proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem by way of the modularity conjecture for semistable elliptic curves, opening a new era in number theory.” Few can remain insensitive to the allure of Fermat’s Last Theorem, a riddle with roots in the mathematics of ancient Greece, simple enough to be understood It is also a centerpiece and appreciated Wiles giving his first lecture in Princeton about his by a novice of the “Langlands approach to proving the Modularity Conjecture in (like the ten- early 1994. year-old Andrew program,” the Wiles browsing of Theorem 2 of Karl Rubin’s contribution in this volume). the shelves of imposing, ambitious It is also a centerpiece of the “Langlands program,” the his local pub- imposing, ambitious edifice of results and conjectures lic library), yet edifice of results and which has come to dominate the number theorist’s view eluding the con- conjectures which of the world. This program has been described as a “grand certed efforts of unified theory” of mathematics. Taking a Norwegian per- the most brilliant has come to dominate spective, it connects the objects that occur in the works minds for well of Niels Hendrik Abel, such as elliptic curves and their over three cen- the number theorist’s associated Abelian integrals and Galois representations, turies, becoming with (frequently infinite-dimensional) linear representa- over its long his- view of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Fermat's Last Theorem
    Fermat's Last Theorem In number theory, Fermat's Last Theorem (sometimes called Fermat's conjecture, especially in older texts) Fermat's Last Theorem states that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of n greater than 2. The cases n = 1 and n = 2 have been known since antiquity to have an infinite number of solutions.[1] The proposition was first conjectured by Pierre de Fermat in 1637 in the margin of a copy of Arithmetica; Fermat added that he had a proof that was too large to fit in the margin. However, there were first doubts about it since the publication was done by his son without his consent, after Fermat's death.[2] After 358 years of effort by mathematicians, the first successful proof was released in 1994 by Andrew Wiles, and formally published in 1995; it was described as a "stunning advance" in the citation for Wiles's Abel Prize award in 2016.[3] It also proved much of the modularity theorem and opened up entire new approaches to numerous other problems and mathematically powerful modularity lifting techniques. The unsolved problem stimulated the development of algebraic number theory in the 19th century and the proof of the modularity theorem in the 20th century. It is among the most notable theorems in the history of mathematics and prior to its proof was in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "most difficult mathematical problem" in part because the theorem has the largest number of unsuccessful proofs.[4] Contents The 1670 edition of Diophantus's Arithmetica includes Fermat's Overview commentary, referred to as his "Last Pythagorean origins Theorem" (Observatio Domini Petri Subsequent developments and solution de Fermat), posthumously published Equivalent statements of the theorem by his son.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2003.08242V1 [Math.HO] 18 Mar 2020
    VIRTUES OF PRIORITY MICHAEL HARRIS In memory of Serge Lang INTRODUCTION:ORIGINALITY AND OTHER VIRTUES If hiring committees are arbiters of mathematical virtue, then letters of recom- mendation should give a good sense of the virtues most appreciated by mathemati- cians. You will not see “proves true theorems” among them. That’s merely part of the job description, and drawing attention to it would be analogous to saying an electrician won’t burn your house down, or a banker won’t steal from your ac- count. I don’t know how electricians or bankers recommend themselves to one another, but I have read a lot of letters for jobs and prizes in mathematics, and their language is revealing in its repetitiveness. Words like “innovative” or “original” are good, “influential” or “transformative” are better, and “breakthrough” or “deci- sive” carry more weight than “one of the best.” Best, of course, is “the best,” but it is only convincing when accompanied by some evidence of innovation or influence or decisiveness. When we try to answer the questions: what is being innovated or decided? who is being influenced? – we conclude that the virtues highlighted in reference letters point to mathematics as an undertaking relative to and within a community. This is hardly surprising, because those who write and read these letters do so in their capacity as representative members of this very community. Or I should say: mem- bers of overlapping communities, because the virtues of a branch of mathematics whose aims are defined by precisely formulated conjectures (like much of my own field of algebraic number theory) are very different from the virtues of an area that grows largely by exploring new phenomena in the hope of discovering simple This article was originally written in response to an invitation by a group of philosophers as part arXiv:2003.08242v1 [math.HO] 18 Mar 2020 of “a proposal for a special issue of the philosophy journal Synthese` on virtues and mathematics.” The invitation read, “We would be delighted to be able to list you as a prospective contributor.
    [Show full text]
  • Elliptic Curves, Modularity, and Fermat's Last Theorem
    Elliptic curves, modularity, and Fermat's Last Theorem For background and (most) proofs, we refer to [1]. 1 Weierstrass models Let K be any field. For any a1; a2; a3; a4; a6 2 K consider the plane projective curve C given by the equation 2 2 3 2 2 3 y z + a1xyz + a3yz = x + a2x z + a4xz + a6z : (1) An equation as above is called a Weierstrass equation. We also say that (1) is a Weierstrass model for C. L-Rational points For any field extension L=K we can consider the L-rational points on C, i.e. the points on C with coordinates in L: 2 C(L) := f(x : y : z) 2 PL : equation (1) is satisfied g: The point at infinity The point O := (0 : 1 : 0) 2 C(K) is the only K-rational point on C with z = 0. It is always smooth. Most of the time we shall instead of a homogeneous Weierstrass equation write an affine Weierstrass equation: 2 3 2 C : y + a1xy + a3y = x + a2x + a4x + a6 (2) which is understood to define a plane projective curve. The discriminant Define 2 b2 := a1 + 4a2; b4 := 2a4 + a1a3; 2 b6 := a3 + 4a6; 2 2 2 b8 := a1a6 + 4a2a6 − a1a3a4 + a2a3 − a4: For any Weierstrass equation we define its discriminant 2 3 2 ∆ := −b2b8 − 8b4 − 27b6 + 9b2b4b6: 1 Note that if char(K) 6= 2, then we can perform the coordinate transformation 2 3 2 y 7! (y − a1x − a3)=2 to arrive at an equation y = 4x + b2x + 2b4x + b6.
    [Show full text]
  • The Modularity Theorem
    R. van Dobben de Bruyn The Modularity Theorem Bachelor's thesis, June 21, 2011 Supervisors: Dr R.M. van Luijk, Dr C. Salgado Mathematisch Instituut, Universiteit Leiden Contents Introduction4 1 Elliptic Curves6 1.1 Definitions and Examples......................6 1.2 Minimal Weierstrass Form...................... 11 1.3 Reduction Modulo Primes...................... 14 1.4 The Frey Curve and Fermat's Last Theorem............ 15 2 Modular Forms 18 2.1 Definitions............................... 18 2.2 Eisenstein Series and the Discriminant............... 21 2.3 The Ring of Modular Forms..................... 25 2.4 Congruence Subgroups........................ 28 3 The Modularity Theorem 36 3.1 Statement of the Theorem...................... 36 3.2 Fermat's Last Theorem....................... 36 References 39 2 Introduction One of the longest standing open problems in mathematics was Fermat's Last Theorem, asserting that the equation an + bn = cn does not have any nontrivial (i.e. with abc 6= 0) integral solutions when n is larger than 2. The proof, which was completed in 1995 by Wiles and Taylor, relied heavily on the Modularity Theorem, relating elliptic curves over Q to modular forms. The Modularity Theorem has many different forms, some of which are stated in an analytic way using Riemann surfaces, while others are stated in a more algebraic way, using for instance L-series or Galois representations. This text will present an elegant, elementary formulation of the theorem, using nothing more than some basic vocabulary of both elliptic curves and modular forms. For elliptic curves E over Q, we will examine the reduction E~ of E modulo any prime p, thus introducing the quantity ~ ap(E) = p + 1 − #E(Fp): We will also give an almost complete description of the conductor NE associated to an elliptic curve E, and compute it for the curve used in the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.
    [Show full text]
  • The Modularity Theorem Jerry Shurman Y + Xy + Y = X − X − X − 14 −1, 0, −2, 4, 0, −2, 1, −4, 4, 6, 4,
    The Modularity Theorem Jerry Shurman y2 + xy + y = x3 − x2 − x − 14 −1, 0, −2, 4, 0, −2, 1, −4, 4, 6, 4, . This talk discusses a result called the Modu- larity Theorem: All rational elliptic curves arise from modular forms. Taniyama first suggested in the 1950’s that a statement along these lines might be true, and a precise conjecture was formulated by Shimura. A 1967 paper of Weil provides strong theoretical evidence for the conjecture. The theorem was proved in the mid-1990’s for a large class of elliptic curves by Wiles with a key ingredient supplied by joint work with Taylor, completing the proof of Fermat’s Last The- orem after some 350 years. The Modularity Theorem was proved completely around 2000 by Breuil, Conrad, Diamond, and Taylor. I. A Motivating Example For any d ∈ Z, d 6= 0, consider a quadratic equation, Q : x2 − dy2 = 1. For any prime p not dividing 2d, let Q(Fp) de- note the solutions (x,y) of Q working over the e field Fp of p elements, i.e., working modulo p. Since we expect roughly p solutions, define a normalized solution-count ap(Q)= p −|Q(Fp)|. There is a bijective correspondencee 1 2 P (Fp) \{t : dt = 1} ←→ Q(Fp). Specifically (exercise), the map ine one direc- tion is 1+ dt2 2t t 7→ , , ∞ 7→ (−1, 0) 1 − dt2 1 − dt2! and the map in the other direction is y (x,y) 7→ , (−1, 0) 7→ ∞. x + 1 1 2 But the set P (Fp) \ {t : dt = 1} contains p − 1 elements or p + 1 elements depending on whether d is a square modulo p or not.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2107.13991V2 [Math.AG] 1 Sep 2021 TBEVCO UDE NAHYPER-K a on BUNDLES VECTOR STABLE ..Telvsbpc Fa Betin Object an of Subspace LLV the 6.3
    STABLE VECTOR BUNDLES ON A HYPER-KAHLER¨ MANIFOLD WITH A RANK 1 OBSTRUCTION MAP ARE MODULAR EYAL MARKMAN Abstract. Let X be an irreducible 2n-dimensional holomorphic symplectic manifold. A re- flexive sheaf F is modular, if its Azumaya algebra End(F ) deforms with X to every K¨ahler deformation of X. We show that if F is a slope-stable reflexive sheaf of positive rank and the obstruction map HH2(X) → Ext2(F, F ) has rank 1, then F is modular. We associate to such a sheaf a vector in the Looijenga-Lunts-Verbitsky lattice of rank b2(X) + 2. Three sources of examples of such modular sheaves emerge. The first source consists of slope-stable reflexive sheaves F of positive rank which are isomorphic to the image Φ(OX ) of the structure sheaf via an equivalence Φ : Db(X) → Db(Y ) of the derived categories of two irreducible holomorphic symplectic manifolds. The second source consists of such F , which are isomorphic to the image of a sky-scraper sheaf via a derived equivalence. The third source consists of images Φ(L) of torsion sheaves L supported as line bundles on holomorphic lagrangian submanifolds Z, such that Z deforms with X in co-dimension one in moduli and L is a rational power of the canonical line bundle of Z. An example of the first source is constructed using a stable and rigid vector bundle G on a K3 surface X to get the modular vector bundle F on the Hilbert scheme X[n], associated to the equivariant vector bundle G ⊠ · · · ⊠ G on Xn via the BKR-correspondence.
    [Show full text]
  • Lectures on Modular Forms 1St Edition Free Download
    FREE LECTURES ON MODULAR FORMS 1ST EDITION PDF Joseph J Lehner | 9780486821405 | | | | | Lectures on Modular Forms - Robert C. Gunning - Google книги In mathematicsa modular form is a complex analytic function on the upper half-plane satisfying a certain kind of functional equation with respect to the group action of the modular groupand also satisfying a growth condition. The theory of modular forms therefore belongs to complex analysis but the main importance of the theory has traditionally been in its connections with number theory. Modular forms appear in other areas, such as algebraic topologysphere packingand string theory. Instead, modular functions are meromorphic that is, they are almost holomorphic except for a set of isolated points. Modular form theory is a special case of the more general theory of automorphic formsand therefore can now be seen as just the most concrete part of a rich theory of discrete groups. Modular forms can also be interpreted as sections of a specific line bundles on modular varieties. The dimensions of these spaces of modular forms can be computed using the Riemann—Roch theorem [2]. A Lectures on Modular Forms 1st edition form of weight k for the modular group. A modular form can equivalently be defined as a function F from the set of lattices in C to the set of complex numbers which satisfies certain conditions:. The simplest examples from this point of view are the Eisenstein series. Then E k is a modular form of weight k. An even unimodular lattice L in R n is a lattice generated by n Lectures on Modular Forms 1st edition forming the columns of a matrix of determinant 1 and satisfying the condition that the square of the length of each vector in L is an even integer.
    [Show full text]